IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> RE: Mandatory Delivery Method for

Re: IPP> RE: Mandatory Delivery Method for Notifications - Comments by April 15

From: Michael Sweet (mike@easysw.com)
Date: Wed Apr 10 2002 - 08:31:30 EDT

  • Next message: Michael Sweet: "Re: IPP> FW: Did you comment on IPP URL Scheme?"

    Carl wrote:
    > Tom,
    >
    > Your reply deviated on one point from my straw man proposal. The IESG would
    > like to see security mandated. In the case of 'ippget' that means MANDATORY
    > support for TLS (although it is RECOMMENDED in RFC 2910.
    > ...

    I think the IESG is off their rocker this time - mandatory support
    for TLS with notifications doesn't provide any appreciable improvement
    in security, especially since scenarios requiring the most
    confidentiality (notifications over the Internet) may not be able
    to support TLS upgrades due to firewall limitations.

    It makes sense to require mandatory support for TLS in IPPFAX, but
    IPPFAX != just IPP + IPP Notifications.

    Perhaps some mention of the IPPFAX specs in the IPP Notifications
    specs would be sufficient, along with the SHOULD/RECOMMENDED wording
    in the current spec? 

    -- 
______________________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products                  mike@easysw.com
Printing Software for UNIX                       http://www.easysw.com

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 10 2002 - 08:33:05 EDT